Wilipedia - Democratic Republic

[silverlib]

Does anyone agree with this? It's been up for quite a long time. It was just used against me in an argument with a cousin of mine. There is even disagreement under the discussion tab.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Republic

The term "Democratic Republic" has formed part of several states' official names.

Today it is largely meaningless, due to the fact that many "democratic republics" were not actually democratic, as well as the fact that many republics that are democratic don't use the title of "democratic republic" in their official names.

Curently, there are eight countries with "Democratic Republic" in their name:

* The Democratic Republic of the Congo
* The Democratic Republic of East Timor
* The Democratic Republic of São Tomé and Príncipe
* The Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka
* The People’s Democratic Republic of Algeria
* The Lao People's Democratic Republic
* The Democratic People's Republic of Korea (North Korea)
* The Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic (Western Sahara)

Both present-day and defunct Democratic Republics have included countries that had little or nothing in common with each other. The reasons why countries call themselves Democratic Republics are also very different from case to case, but the common denominator seems to be that all these countries were created as a result of a revolution or war of independence against a domestic or foreign regime that was widely seen as tyrannical, oppressive and undemocratic. Thus the new country gave itself the title of "Democratic Republic" in order to reflect the idea that a dictatorial regime had been overthrown and a new, democratic one was put in its place.

and more at the link

[Kire]

1. How was it used against you?

If it is "largely meaningless", why does it affect you so?

[silverlib]

2. He said Republic after I said Democracy and then

I said

You are correct. Republic – not democracy, but I will add “democratic republic.”

Here’s my take – a Democratic Republic – where a constitution maintains certain inherent rights and states are bound by the constitution – assures that a majority cannot, inside a state or otherwise, decide that slavery (or anything else deemed okay by the majority that is against the Constitution) is okay or that certain people’s rights do not have the same value as others simply by a majority vote. I’m not too big on state’s rights. I cannot think of any instance where I feel state’s rights should take precedence over federal law. States, under a democratic republic, have a voice in federal law.

In Federalist Paper #14 Madison wrote: “The true distinction between these forms...is, that in a Democracy, the people meet and exercise the government in person; in a Republic they assemble and administer it by their representatives and agents. A Democracy consequently will be confined to a small spot. A Republic may be extended over a large region.”

“The effect (is to) enlarge the public views, by passing them through the medium of a chosen body of citizens, whose wisdom may best discern the true interest of their country, and whose patriotism and love of justice, will be least likely to sacrifice it to temporary or partial considerations. Under such a regulation, it may well happen that the public voice pronounced by the representatives of the people, will be more consonant to the public good, than if pronounced by the people themselves convened for the purpose.”

Essentially, a Democratic Republic is a limited government with enumerated powers (as specified in a Constitution) which is administered by persons elected by the people. These officials hold office at the pleasure of the electorate and must therefore strive to govern in a manner that is acceptable to the majority of voters.

Our system now longer works when special interests (i.e. corporations/AIPAC) are able to manipulate the process (i.e. media/elected officials) and the elected fail to exercise oversight. Whatever we cal it, it is not working. The constitution is being trampled with no repercussion.

Then he sent me the Wikipedia link.

[Kire]

4. So you made up your own definition of Democratic Republic

and he zinged you on it

No offence, that's what it seems. Don't worry, it's meaningless.

[silverlib]

8. You got that right!

And it bit me in the booty.

I used MrPrax's example of how the word republic had the same result of changing a definition when used in the names of countries.

[Hosnon]

6. The term has two different meanings. No big deal. nt

[bperci108]

7. It's a GOP talking point.

They are quite happy to remind people that "this isn't a democracy, it's a representative republic".

It's a way to justify power, privilege and elitism.

Simple as that. :)

[MrPrax]

3. You forgot the classic...

East Germany = German Democratic Republic
All the rest of the satelite's used People's Republic or Democratic

(West Germany = Federal Republic of Germany)<-- not democratic ;-)

You might have a point...the democratic 'moniker' tended to be a cold war thing...but a Republican form of government doesn't have to be democratic -- it can still be a dictatorship and be Republican.

Moreover there are various forms of democracy and so playing around with the term is problematic as systems of simple assent, like the ones Saddam or Hoxha or whoever, used is still democratic in as much as the public is involved. Whether they were meaningful democracies -- well not likely.

Countries that were British colonies (Westminister model rather than the Republican model) tend to use Dominion of (Canada) or Commonwealth of (Australia) -- some of the Original States use this term as well. But nobody in those countries really use the full name.

But "Democratic Republic" is still the OFFICIAL name ... so I don't see the dilemma.

[Kire]

5. Similarly, Nazis were fascists

But they called themselves National Socialists

[MrPrax]

10. Actually

They were originally the German Workers Party -- then Hitler and especially Roehm came along and they added the national and socialist because they wanted to confuse the electorate and siphon the SDP vote...in post-war Germany, socialism was a popular. Roehm was apparently into socialism and when the SA was purged (Night of the Long Knives) that was thought to be because Hitler, Himmler, elites didn't trust him and his SA folks partly due to it. Hitler hated commies with a passion.

It was still technically a republic as Hitler was both head of State and head of Government and under the simple definition of Republic it would 'non-monarchical'...or the Presidential System, like you have in the US, or Mexico and some African countries, South Korea.

The terms are pretty loose these days.

[silverlib]

9. Thanks....

I used part of your post in my response, as the word 'republic' changes when used in the name of a country - as you pointed out.

[nealmhughes]

11. I once read that any place legally beginning their name with "Democratic"

was usually a definite sign of tyrrany, as was "national" in party titles a pretty certain sign of antisemitic! This usually worked well historically in Europe...